TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheThirdBlackGuy Archive

View 1 post and 54 comments by TheThirdBlackGuy on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

Atreus?
/r/PussyPassDenied17/03/21 07:33 PM
4

Do you have an example that's not just hitting women?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/10/17 07:06 AM
2

Jesus Marley already did....
/r/MensRights09/02/13 12:37 AM
1

Then I'm afraid the nuances of our language escape you.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:58 PM
2

Rather, women who produce child porn, he said, would more typically be motivated by the possibility of financial gain or a desire to please a dominant male love interest. What do you mean?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:53 PM
6

You've completely ignored what I said in favor of your own interpretation. My argument is that it isn't a different motivation, it is just being phrased as such for the benefit of female molesters. The motivation is self-gratification. She isn't doing this for a man, she is doing it for herself and requires a man there. Do you not see the difference?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:00 PM
7

It is self-gratification every time. It doesn't matter if she derives gratification from someone else's gratification of her molesting her child or if she is solely gratified. Making this distinction is irrelevant and insensitive. That is akin to saying there is a valid distinction between people that murder someone for a car vs gang members who kill for respect (or retaliation). The "motivation" has little bearing on anything, even less so when it was generalized to "men" and not "other predato…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 06:29 PM
30

For some reason, I don't think the victims or the legal system care what motivates the "typical" female molester. Provided that is even true.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:42 AM
18

Or the card she used with her name on it.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 10:03 PM
11

Assault charges for an 11 year old are uncommon, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 08:18 AM
1

No, in California without a prenup the split is 50/50. However, Brand (~11mil) walked away from the Perry's (~44mil) portion of it. They did split their property though.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 09:13 PM
-15

People read that?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:58 PM
-11

How does asking for upvotes limit your ability to decide for yourself? Isn't the fact that he's submitting this a plea for upvotes in the first place?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 07:25 PM
1

Not sure what you didn't understand. I tried using small words though :-/
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:00 PM
0

If nothing else, your ignorance is amusing. "Our media" is probably not the same, as no one I listen to spouts the ridiculous nonsense you believe in (thankfully). Responses to Clinton's bid for presidency were met with all sorts of "women are too emotional" drivel. The same was said by Santorum when female combatants were authorized. Something about males' natural instinct to protect females would compromise the army. You think every one in our culture thinks women and men are equal? Or do you …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:50 PM
0

"More complex" alright, let me just trust you on that one. So complex it requires you to respond to an image macro to address it. Regardless of your imagined complexity, not every single thing needs to address "the real victim" every fucking time. Let the "fake" victim be addressed once in a while. Isn't that the logic you need to shift the narrative from female-dominate rape coverage to male exposure too? Or any other multi-gendered issue? It makes no sense to promote a single gender-narrative …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:13 PM
0

And if I told you one act can victimize two parties?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:03 PM
0

As to what, that there are men fighting against a perceived inequality in the world? That isn't a contentious issue to me. Fight on my brothers. I'll support that completely. What I disagree with is your backhanded insult towards women, your misconstruing of a very positive image, as well as what is seemingly an inability to admit your mistake. You misinterpreted the image and the message. Any individual that depicts gender equality as a competition is unworthy of my time and should be ostracize…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:56 PM
2

Women are the victim, no matter who the victim is. Isn't remotely close to the "message" behind this image. The message is that society holds femininity to a lower regard than masculinity. I think this is painful obvious, but you are free to force whatever narrative you want on the image. There is a reason sissy, pussy, bitch, etc are time-tested insults.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:51 PM
4

Completely...that's James Franco supporting transvestites and the text is a Madonna song.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:57 AM
2

It wasn't so much her act to me but her response to his gender flip and his implicit approval. That is only if he thought she could rape him whenever. And messing around during a movie in which I was messing with you is a bit different. The nuances of relationships differ between couples. He took issue with it, but put up with it 'all the time' that part I don't understand.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:15 PM
3

I would think if he did it more than once, he would have left. Then again, people aren't as logic as I expect them to be sometimes. Also, fancy seeing you here too. I don't know him well enough to determine the honesty of his words either. Possibly she was teasing at times and he knew it, thus the 'if'.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:00 PM
-14

And that, friends is why I'm a huge supporter of r/mensrights. Because you can't be half-arsed to dump a potential rapist? The fuck. Break up with her if you would actually consider that rape. The fact that you yourself use the gender switch as justification for anything is as big of an issue as her warped reality. No rape victim calmly explains to their rapist, "you know this is rape?" and continues the relationship (at least none that are healthy...).
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:45 PM
1

Is hurting a child because you feel that your god wants them hurt or your culture demands that they suffer one of them? Yes. I have no issue with spanking a child either. If a child is spanked for stealing, and the parent's find stealing to be wrong only because the bible tells them so, that is fine. Or culture punishes liars too, and I have no issue with a child punished for lying. Is "culture" and "religion" good enough reasons? To what extent? Yes, to the extent afforded to them by law. Circu…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 04:11 AM
1

Ask intelligent questions? You are the only one between us applying a gendered filter to your responses. I have in no way indicated any difference in the morality of harming a male or female. That is not the focus of this conversation. The focus is whether procedure A is different than procedure B. Since they are, they must be evaluated differently (even if you can draw a parallel consequence from each act). Taking a life is the consequence. It doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman. However, …
/r/MensRights03/12/12 10:28 PM
1

You can keep painting this as a male vs female thing, I'm going to keep ignoring it. Look at it like two people (gender irrelevant) going in for a procedure. One of these procedures could be unreasonable, the other not. It'd be ignorant to deny that two different procedures should be evaluated differently. There is no "specific" to give. Compare amputation vs a skin graft in treating a burn. Depending on the circumstance a skin graft would be reasonable and amputation would not. In a different s…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:54 PM
0

I again have no interest in why you want to compare female and male genitals. Literally none. I don't disagree they are similar. I also acknowledge they are different. Thus, they can (and should) be evaluated differently. FGM could be unreasonable while circumcision is not. I don't have an issue with that at all. You still haven't said why circumcision is some illegal butchering of males, barbaric, immoral, or whatever negative description you give it. Yep, the penis is less sensitive. I don't c…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:26 AM
1

I did not say that. I asked the necessity, and stated that if there is ever such a case where it is necessary I am opposed to making it illegal. Again, "homologous" doesn't care any legal equivalence. Self-defense and murder are homologous in the sense that they both are the taking of another's life. It is merely the circumstances surrounding the act that are relevant as well as the intention ('degrees' of murder).
/r/MensRights01/12/12 10:29 PM
1

We just answered this. If you acknowledge there is a difference between male and female genitalia, you have to acknowledge there is a difference between FGM and MGM.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 05:05 PM
1

Do you know what a penis is? And what a clitoris is? Because unless you understand that genitalia aren't shared between sexes (in humans) there is nothing I can do to help you.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 04:48 PM
1

That makes no sense. "MGM" is different physically and legally. It is not sexist that there is a difference.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 04:35 PM
1

Maybe? I'm not really sure where this tangent is headed. Nothing about that strikes me as necessarily illegal. Unless there is absolutely no justification for it, I wouldn't make it illegal. Even if there is a 1 in 1000 chance that it'll be necessary, it should be available without the doctor fearing legal repercussions.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:53 PM
1

Made what?
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:31 PM
0

You are free to equate them as you see fit. I do not. And unless your definition of "homologous" differs from mine, it doesn't mean they are identical. As such, treating them exactly the same is silly. I know enough about male circumcision to form an opinion on it, and I don't need female circumcision information to shape it. They are two different things. This is sexism. No, no it is not. All forms of FGM are illegal in a lot of the developed world, whether more or less invasive than the type o…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 08:00 AM
1

I answered that here. I'm not sure, I don't know much about female genital mutilation. Nor do I regard every argument by its opposite-sex counterpart. I will posit that if significant differences exist in both the methodology and effect of the procedure I could disagree with one while supporting the other. Until such time as the genitals are identical male vs female circumcision is a distraction. It is as nonsensical as asking my opinion on male clitoral piercings.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:41 AM
-3

Is it not moral to respect someone's body autonomy? Babies do not have autonomy. That phrasing alone makes no sense. And while they are free to feed (as in provide nutrients), they can't NOT (malnutrition) feed them adequate sustenance. Talk about disingenuous. I would completely reject a parent trying to force their older child into it, but that is because as the kid ages the responsibilities shift from parent to child. A baby isn't afforded any responsibilities. That article is dated. No natio…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:11 PM
-1

Because the risk increases and their is no moral justification for it. Parents get to make these decisions for their children. Vaccinations, piercings, haircuts, diet, bathing, clothing, shelter, etc. Sorry you have a personal disagreement with a minor cosmetic surgery, but your right to stop it ends at your own child. Hell, if it were up to me children wouldn't be able to wear makeup (re: Toddlers and Tiaras). But until such time as circumcision is regarded as dangerous it falls under their rig…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:41 PM
-1

The baby lacks the capacity to form an opinion either way.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:21 PM
-6

A birthmark is far from a deformity. And as far as the use of the term "cosmetic" goes, they are identical. And why do you care what some random man/woman recommends? Seriously, so bogged down in the most insignificant aspects of life here. Thousands of years of circumcision behind us and thousands into the future. I don't see humanity being better or worse off either way. If some parent wants a kid with a circumcised penis, they have every right to do so. It carries no greater risk than anythin…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:54 PM
-2

No it isn't. Babies with deformities that require cosmetic changes shouldn't be prohibited because it is unnecessary. Self-esteem, traditions, etc are all important parts of development. There was some baby with a forehead-sized birthmark. The parents put horns under the skin, stretched it out, cut it off, and removed the horns. Cosmetics matter to some people, and provided their is no harm to the child in the long-run, it is their decision with how to raise their baby. not be recommended as a r…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:21 PM
-4

I'm not sure, I don't know much about female genital mutilation. Nor do I regard every argument by its opposite-sex counterpart. I will posit that if significant differences exist in both the methodology and effect of the procedure I could disagree with one while supporting the other. Until such time as the genitals are identical male vs female circumcision is a distraction. It is as nonsensical as asking my opinion on male clitoral piercings.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:17 PM
-8

I disagree that this needs justification, so I doubt our conversation will be productive. That said, a parent is charged with raising their child. I'd place circumcision as one of the lowest-priority "issues" in that regard. It is mostly cosmetic, it carries minor risk, and it may hold religious significance. I don't see it as any more immoral than allowing a parent to determine their child's diet, for example. That too can have far-reaching consequences, but certain liberties are afforded to ou…
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:54 PM
-4

There is a much higher risk when you are an adult though.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 04:18 PM
8

You married your ex right? Isn't that just another "mistake" you should own? As far as I know, alimony isn't some new concept. Had you thought this out at the time, maybe you wouldn't have married your ex, she sounds like a less-than-stellar person anyways. You were young? Lovestruck? Dumb? Either way, this is no more defensible than the dad giving up his career for his kids (and probably a lot less).
/r/MensRights11/09/12 08:31 AM
1

Why? Because California courts charged with interpreting California's statutory rape laws have recognized that "a minor . . . who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse." This sounds gender neutral, right? I am also bothered by the magic consent number. The eve of the AoC birthday separates victimization? That is silly, and the court should be allowed to exam the circumstances. As long as their isn't a blanket ruling either way, I support the court'…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:12 PM
2

That is not how morality works. He's right to define his own principles to live by. If that means women can beat him down, that's his problem.
/r/MensRights21/07/12 09:18 AM
1

Probably, I go off what is presented. The only important assumption I are making is that you support the use of the sex registry, particularly in cases like this. This is what I disagree with. My reasons for why are already listed. Any assumptions about you beyond that is purely a mental exercise.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 04:36 AM
2

I also have an issue with the prison system as should everyone else. I do not follow your train of thought. You defend one broken system with support of another. I think the image of complacency your method gives off damages progress.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 11:50 PM
4

(with the exception of a law I might find unconstitutional or against my rights, but then I take my chance and roll the dice.) We define our rights differently. I think the necessary consequences of being put on the registry trample all over a person's rights. It's a social stigma that can literally deprive them of their life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. I'm sorry, but your casual and I honestly believe ill-informed understanding of said consequences is upsetting.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:42 PM
8

Applying an unjust law equally isn't right. I dislike the inequality, but I will fight to keep as many people off the registry as possible. It's that bad.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:59 PM
6

To be clear, it reads as if wolfsktaag is raping women, and that is how he hears them.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 04:45 AM
1

That is in accordance with my thought. I suppose the latitude given to the judge skews the weighting of each of those factors. My opinion was that even for such a heinous crime it wouldn't be uncommon to be out on jail provided none of the other factors suggested the accused would run.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:45 PM
4

I thought they weren't really based on the charges as there is a presumption of innocence. However, flight risk and criminal history do make sense.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:31 PM
33

Pretty much incest brah.
/r/seduction11/10/11 11:54 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter